BAC vs IAG Stock Comparison
IAG currently leads BAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BAC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BAC and IAG?
IAG leads the current stock comparison as Iamgold Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bank of America Corporation vs Iamgold Corporation
IAG leads
IAG leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support IAG, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bank of America Corporation
Iamgold Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IAG over BAC, 56 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. IAG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BAC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IAG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IAG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. IAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bank of America Corporation and Iamgold Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BAC and IAG against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality49 vs 79IAG +30
- Risk Resilience60 vs 35BAC +25
- Momentum26 vs 34IAG +8
- Value57 vs 61IAG +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor IAG. IAG’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BAC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
IAG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAC and IAG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IAG (Iamgold Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BAC (Bank of America Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
IAGIAG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BACBAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IAGIAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
IAGIAG on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
BACBAC on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
IAGIAG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BAC | IAG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +47.2% | IAG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.6% | +22% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IAG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IAG | 47 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | BACon balance | revenue growth -3.3% vs -18.9%; EPS growth -23.8% vs -40%; TTM ROE 10.7% vs 28.1%; gross margin 60.4% vs 49.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 47.1% — BAC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IAG | Value 57 vs 61 |
| Technicals | BAC | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -19.7%; vs 200-day -7.5% vs -5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | BAC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | IAG | Target upside 32.5% vs 47.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAC and IAG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on IAG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30IAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IAG +9
- 47 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- IAG +7
- 47 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- IAG +17
- 41 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- IAG +17
- 49 vs 66
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 16 when BAC moved ahead of IAG.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAC
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IAG
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.43%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active.
IAG leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -7.71%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to IAG's edge.
- 2BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3IAG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate IAG's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
BAC leads on balance| Metric | BAC | IAG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.3% | -18.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.8% | -40% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 49.9% |
| Operating margin | 22.4% | 47.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.7% | 28.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.12 |
Performance
IAG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAC | IAG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | 18.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | 5.6% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | 4.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 45.5% |
Technicals
BAC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAC | IAG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 26.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -19.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.5% | -5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 48.1% |
Risk
BAC is the more resilient| Metric | BAC | IAG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 2.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.32 | 1.4 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -43.3% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -29.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.8% | 63.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAC or IAG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IAG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 against BAC's 47. The edge comes from quality and momentum. BAC is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is BAC or IAG the better buy right now?
IAG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IAG over BAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IAG leads Quality by 30 points; BAC leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; IAG leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAC or IAG?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for BAC and +47.2% for IAG, so the Street currently favors IAG. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BAC or IAG?
IAG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, BAC or IAG?
BAC on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, BAC or IAG?
IAG on the Momentum factor, by 8 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, BAC or IAG?
BAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BAC on Risk Resilience, by 25 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BAC more profitable than IAG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 49.9%; operating margin 22.4% vs 47.1%; ttm roe 10.7% vs 28.1%. BAC leads on one measure and IAG on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is IAG's lead over BAC getting stronger or weaker?
IAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-16, when BAC moved ahead of IAG.
What would change the BAC vs IAG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAC closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to IAG's edge; BAC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; IAG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate IAG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BAC and IAG?
BAC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. IAG: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on BAC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IAG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAC and IAG with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.